One other thought. One way to describe "psychological safety" is an environment where people are psychologically mature enough not to act out their insecurities at the expense of others. That's exactly the kind of environment where you would expect hard conversation about uncomfortable truths to be possible, because people will be able to actually participate in them instead of becoming defensive.
One other thought. One way to describe "psychological safety" is an environment where people are psychologically mature enough not to act out their insecurities at the expense of others. That's exactly the kind of environment where you would expect hard conversation about uncomfortable truths to be possible, because people will be able to actually participate in them instead of becoming defensive.
I think I actually basically agree with you that Project Aristotle’s findings were sound, in that all the particular practices that Edmondson in fact recommends under the heading of “psychological safety” are good. But I think conceptualizing this set of good practices under the heading of “psychological safety” reflects a substantive (i.e., not merely semantic) misunderstanding of *why those practices work* and the principles underlying them, and this misunderstanding in turn is what leads to the misapplications of Edmondson original playbook in practice.
But yes, what you describe as “being psychological mature enough not to act out from insecurity” is much closer to accurately describing the principle. In fact I really like “psychological maturity” as a candidate term, at least at first blush.
I think it might be easier to say "We need to work on psychological safety since research shows that it improves performance" than "It looks like the root of our problems is that we're a psychologically immature team" :)
lol- fair enough! Do you think one of the other suggest terms, like “psychological trust” or “bold truth-seeking” or some combination of these, might go over better?
For example, a colleague might point out a flaw in my proposal in front of others, making me feel insecure. I might become afraid that others will think I'm inexperienced or even stupid. To "protect" myself from this, I might act out this insecurity by attacking the other person or doubling-down on explaining why my proposal is great.
A more mature response would be to notice that I'm feeling insecure, let the feeling be, and address the criticism of my colleague by acknowledging it, reflecting on it to see if it's valid and proposing a way forward that improves the proposal, thanks to the criticism.
One other thought. One way to describe "psychological safety" is an environment where people are psychologically mature enough not to act out their insecurities at the expense of others. That's exactly the kind of environment where you would expect hard conversation about uncomfortable truths to be possible, because people will be able to actually participate in them instead of becoming defensive.
I think I actually basically agree with you that Project Aristotle’s findings were sound, in that all the particular practices that Edmondson in fact recommends under the heading of “psychological safety” are good. But I think conceptualizing this set of good practices under the heading of “psychological safety” reflects a substantive (i.e., not merely semantic) misunderstanding of *why those practices work* and the principles underlying them, and this misunderstanding in turn is what leads to the misapplications of Edmondson original playbook in practice.
But yes, what you describe as “being psychological mature enough not to act out from insecurity” is much closer to accurately describing the principle. In fact I really like “psychological maturity” as a candidate term, at least at first blush.
I think it might be easier to say "We need to work on psychological safety since research shows that it improves performance" than "It looks like the root of our problems is that we're a psychologically immature team" :)
lol- fair enough! Do you think one of the other suggest terms, like “psychological trust” or “bold truth-seeking” or some combination of these, might go over better?
No, I’d keep it as is. Those who will misunderstand it, will do so anyway
I am not sure I understand what you mean by acting out insecurities. Could you please give an example of what this would look like?
For example, a colleague might point out a flaw in my proposal in front of others, making me feel insecure. I might become afraid that others will think I'm inexperienced or even stupid. To "protect" myself from this, I might act out this insecurity by attacking the other person or doubling-down on explaining why my proposal is great.
A more mature response would be to notice that I'm feeling insecure, let the feeling be, and address the criticism of my colleague by acknowledging it, reflecting on it to see if it's valid and proposing a way forward that improves the proposal, thanks to the criticism.